Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 28881-20 Amet v dailyrecord.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Lorene
Amet complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
dailyrecord.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause
10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “High paid doctor falsely claims MMR jab triggers autism”,
published on 1 November 2020.
2. The
article reported on an investigation into an autism specialist described as a
“self-proclaimed” autism expert. The article reported that an investigator “who
has two autistic children – posed as worried mum Petra to discuss fictional
Raye, seven” to have a video consultation with the specialist. It also stated
that Raye’s diet included “chicken nuggets, fruit juice and noodles”. It said
that the “probe was triggered when a parent raised concerns about the work of
Amet’s clinic – Autism Treatment Plus – which claims to have improved the
development of 80 per cent of its patients”. The article contained a still
image of the specialist taken from the video consultation.
3. The
article claimed that the specialist had said that the child’s diet could be
behind her “challenging behavioural issues” and that “organic chicken nuggets”
could alleviate autism as part of an exclusion diet and that the specialist had
sent the investigator “vegan” recipes as part of the consultation. It reported
that the “National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has discredited [a
change in diet] as a way of managing autism in young people.” It also stated
that the specialist had suggested that the MMR vaccine was linked to autism,
and that “doctors ‘do not do their job’ as autism is not reported as an
‘adverse reaction’ to the MMR jab”, and that studies which linked the two had
been “suppressed”. The article reported that “experts” were horrified by the
specialist’s remarks, and contained a quote from a named doctor. The article
said that the investigator had been sent a questionnaire which had the tagline
“autism is treatable”. The article said that the specialist had recommended
various tests and “anti-inflammatories” for the child and that “further
‘treatment’ would involve working with medics in Geneva.”
4. The
complainant was the specialist referred to in the article. She said that the
article had breached Clause 10 of the Editors’ Code as the video consultation
had been recorded and an image had been taken of her without her knowledge with
a clandestine device. She said that the investigator had engaged in subterfuge
by inventing a child and by concealing the fact she was working for a newspaper
in order to arrange the session. The complainant said that the article was not
in the public interest, as the allegations against her were false and the
article was inaccurate. She also said that the investigator had an undisclosed
conflict of interest as she worked as an activist for a company whose work
focused on people with Autism; that she had worked with the press previously
and had been paid for this work; and she believed the investigator and
journalist had a bias against her.
5. The
complainant also said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. She
said that she had not said that the child’s diet could be behind her
“challenging behavioural issues”, nor that “organic chicken nuggets” could
alleviate autism. She said that in fact she had recommended a self-restrictive
diet overall, and that chicken nuggets were simply an example of how a food
that the specific case had been said to consume previously could be made with
healthy ingredients and less inflammatory food in line with this diet. She also
said that it was a contradiction within the article to state she recommended
both “chicken nuggets” and “vegan” recipes.
6. The
complainant also said that it was inaccurate to report that the “National
Institute for Health and Care Excellence has discredited [a change in diet] as
a way of managing autism in young people” and that the correct position was
that it did not recommend a change of diet “for the management of core features
of autism in children and young people". She said that exclusion diets did
not aim to address these “core features”, but the physical comorbidities
associated with autism. She also referred to a study within the guidelines
which said that six out of nine children and young people had found gluten-free
diets to be beneficial, and four out of six had found casein-free diets to be.
The complainant referred to a paper written by her company which had found
exclusionary diets to be helpful. She also said that the guidelines were from
2013 and may be reviewed in the future, and that NHS guidance is not the most
recent information, and that experts may utilise information from more recent
studies.
7. The
complainant also said it was inaccurate to describe her as a “self-proclaimed”
autism expert as there is no such thing as an “autism expert” as the condition
is not fully understood, but that she described herself as having “an
expertise” in autism on her website as she has various certificates, training,
and experience within the field of autism.
8. The
complainant said it was inaccurate to report that the probe was triggered after
a parent raised concerns about the complainant. The complainant said she was
not aware of such concerns, nor did she think such a parent would have
contacted the publication.
9. The
complainant said it was misleading for the article to state that her practice
“claims to have improved the development of 80 per cent of its patients”, as
her website did not state that 80% of families who come to her seeking advice
improve due to the diet change.
10. The
complainant also said it was inaccurate to report that she had suggested that
the MMR vaccine is linked to autism, as she had never said this, and that she
had mentioned other possible factors that may have contributed to the child’s
autism. She also said that it was the investigator who had repeatedly brought
up the MMR vaccine and asked her whether there was a link. She also said it was
misleading to report she had said that “doctors ‘do not do their job’ as autism
is not reported as an ‘adverse reaction’ to the MMR jab”, and that studies
which linked the two had been “suppressed” as what she actually said was that
health concerns reported by some parents following vaccination are not reported
by GPs to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
11. The
complainant said it was misleading to report that “experts”, including a quote
from a named doctor, were horrified by the complainant’s remarks. She said that
firstly, as she disputed that she had made the comments in the article, it was
inaccurate to report that experts had disagreed with her. She also said that as
only one expert was named it was inaccurate to refer to “experts” in the
plural.
12. The
article claimed that the investigator was sent a questionnaire with the tagline
“autism is treatable”. The complainant said she did not send a questionnaire
with this tagline. She supplied both the email sent and the questionnaire she
intended the investigator to answer, which did not have this tagline. The
investigator had also sent the complainant screenshots of the survey she had
completed, which the complainant provided, and which did not contain the
tagline “autism is treatable”. She accepted that the third-party website that
this questionnaire came from used the tagline “autism is treatable” but noted
that she did not send a document with this tagline personally.
13. The
complainant said it was misleading to report that she had recommended various
tests and “anti-inflammatories”. She said that in fact, after the investigator
asked what testing was available, she made her aware of such tests in response
to her request. She said she also made clear there were no benefits to testing,
and that therefore she could not be described as “recommending” tests. The
complainant also said she did not recommend anti-inflammatories, but a diet
that was anti-inflammatory in nature. She said that as she did not recommend
such consultations or tests, it was inaccurate to report that “further
‘treatment’ would involve working with medics in Geneva.”
14. The
complainant also said that the article breached Clause 2 (Privacy) as a
screenshot of the video consultation showing her face, in her home where she
worked, was included.
15. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It accepted that Clause 10 was
engaged, but said that there was sufficient public interest to justify the
investigator’s actions. It said that a source made the publication aware of the
complainant's firm and that a further source told it the complainant's firm had
been mentioned to them by concerned parents in the course of their work
campaigning for government regulation over unproven Autism treatments. The
publication then commissioned an investigator it had worked with previously to
pursue the story. The publication said that, prior to engaging in the
subterfuge there was a discussion with the editor as to what information would
be collected, the means of collecting it, and whether it was in the public
interest.
16. The
publication stated that no other methods had been used to obtain the
complainant’s views; however, the misrepresentation and subterfuge was
proportionate, and had to be used in this case in order to see how the
complainant engaged with a potential client, rather than a newspaper. It said
that a video consultation was the usual practice in the complainant’s booking
process and therefore it used this method, and it was not aware of a way to
receive a similar result with a lower level of subterfuge or a less intrusive
method, or no clandestine device.
17. The
publication also stated that the investigation was in the public interest on
the grounds that it would help protect public health and safety, and would
protect the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual
or organisation. The publication also said that previous investigations had
found that the complainant did not disclose that her doctorate was not medical.
It also stated that if parents are paying or considering paying for the therapy
on the understanding that this is a legitimate 'medical' treatment, then they
were potentially being exploited and the general public needed to be made
aware.
18. With
regards to the accuracy of the article, the publication provided a transcript
of the recording, and shortly afterwards the audio recording of the meeting.
The complainant subsequently made amendments to the transcript, which were
accepted by the publication.
19. The
publication noted that the complainant’s website stated: “In our opinion, 80%
of individuals respond favourably to a dietary modification. The improvements
may include improved bowel habit, general health and well being, appetite and
weight regulation, and in children with autism, improved behaviours and sleep
patterns, eye contact, social communication and sensory issues.” The
publication said that it was therefore not misleading to report that the
complainant’s practice “claims to have improved the development of 80 per cent
of its patients”.
20. The
publication referred to a section of the transcript which stated the following:
Complainant:
Number one is the diet – the diet, we have to change it. It is almost certain
that your daughter is in pain and that’s why she wakes up. This is in part
because of the diet.
[...]
Complainant:
Well as I said, we remove the food which are pro-inflammatory. These foods
contribute to maintaining inflammation. The inflammation could have been
triggered by the genetics or the vaccine but it is maintained. She is
displaying issues of health because of a sudden onset of challenging
behavioural and self injurious behaviour; she is in pain. Until you change the
diet, that pain will not stop. There is no magic pill in autism. Zero. I cannot
give you one pill which will take it away.
The
publication therefore said it was not inaccurate to report that the complainant
had said that the child’s diet could be behind her “challenging behavioural
issues”. It added that the article as a whole made clear that the complainant’s
advice was change to the child’s diet in general, but stated that the
complainant went into a lot of detail regarding a recipe for organic chicken
nuggets. It said where the complainant had said that “number one is diet” and
that “this is in part because of the diet” and that she stated in another part
of the transcript that children had “fully recovered” from her plan it was not
misleading to report that she had said that organic chicken nuggets could
alleviate autism. Whilst it did not accept a breach of Clause 1, the
publication offered to publish the following as a footnote to the article:
We are
happy to make clear Dr Amet's suggestion of removing gluten from home-made
chicken nuggets is part of her wider diet plan, to help people with autism.
Always seek medical advice before starting any new treatment or diet.
The
publication said that where many of the recipes supplied by the complainant
were vegan, it was not inaccurate to report that she had recommended “vegan”
recipes. The publication accepted the complainant’s position that the National
Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines did not recommend a change
of diet “for the management of core features of autism in children and young
people", and said that this did not contradict what was said in the
article. It also said that there was no reference to the guidelines being
updated from 2013 in the article, and added that the NHS stated that “special
diets” do not work for treating autism. The publication said that during the
interview the complainant had not distinguished between the “core features” of autism
and what she had described as “physical comorbidities”, and noted that the
complainant had said during the interview, and published on her website that
diet improved behaviour and social communication, which were considered as core
features of autism by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. It
was therefore not misleading to say the body had “discredited [a change in
diet] as a way of managing autism in young people”. It said the study referred
to by the complainant, whilst considered beneficial, did not outweigh the
categorical advice not to use exclusion diets.
21. It
said that the article did not question or dispute the complainant’s
certifications, but said that the complainant did portray herself as an autism
expert. It noted that the complainant had said that “some children have fully
recovered”, despite NHS guidance saying there is no cure or treatment for
autism.
22. The
publication stated that the complainant not being aware of the concerns being
raised by parents was not a breach of Clause 1. It reiterated that this was an
important factor for the publication’s investigation.
23. The
publication stated that the complainant had linked the MMR vaccine to autism.
and supplied the following passage from the transcript:
Complainant:
Yes,…basically, as you know the NHS and the official position is there’s no
link between vaccination and it [...]
There’s
been quite a number of studies which have suggested otherwise and of course,
quite a lot of the opinion has been suppressed and people have been attacked
for questioning the safety of vaccination, especially MMR […]
As far
as I’m concerned I have heard the story you are sharing, over and over - I have
no doubt there are children who are affected by this. It actually fits very
well with what we understand autism for some children to be. The animal model
where you mimic infections when you basically cause a burdening of the immune
system and vaccination is a means to cause the system to be overwhelmed. That
causes inflammation, this affects brain function. This can link to gut issues,
this can link to behaviour And unfortunately sometimes these changes are
essentially irreversible.
Investigator:
It’s terrible they’ve been getting away from it for so long.
Complainant:
Yes, it is terrible. I remain - I don’t remain hopeful - but I believe
eventually it will be accepted. I believe it will be. It only needs the right
person in the right place -a president whose child has the same issue could
completely change the whole thing and completely stop it. One person alone in
the right place a the right time could do that but at the moment all
scientists, all doctors, who have raised their concern have been attacked.
Basically you can’t do anything. Even doctors do not do their job because
normally when there is an adverse reaction you have to complete a form which is
called a yellow card to flag the adverse reaction to this. But they don’t do
this because they say oh no, there is no link - therefore they’re not even
reporting it, saying autism is starting off at 18 months of age, it’s just a
coincidence. But the reality is we have children who have been given the
vaccination earlier than planned and they’ve developed the signs of autism at
eight months , we equally have children who receive the vaccination much later,
even age of eight, and they develop sign of autism at that point. And that
doesn’t fit with the textbook description of autism and when you develop it.
24. The
publication provided the emails that had been sent to experts, and the response
of the doctor named in the article, which included the quote that was reported.
It also stated that two other experts had commented, but had asked to remain
anonymous.
25. The
publication said that the investigator had been sent links to two forms to
complete with questions about her daughter ahead of the meeting. One of the
questionnaires that was sent to the investigator was from a website which used
the tagline 'Autism is Treatable'. It said, therefore, it was not misleading to
report that the investigator had been sent a questionnaire with this tagline.
26. The
publication did not accept that the complainant had not recommended tests and
“anti-inflammatories”. It acknowledged that the complainant had initially
advised that “before investing in tests I would suggest you would start with
the diet” but said that the complainant had said that the child should “go on
to” anti-inflammatory supplements straight away. The complainant also explained
that there were multiple tests that could be done at home in order to assess
the patient’s health.
27. The
publication noted that after the session, the complainant sent a document
describing tests she would “recommend”, which gave information on blood, urine,
hair and stool tests, the total cost of which was £971.90. The publication also
noted that during the interview, the complainant had said she worked with
medical doctors who worked in Geneva.
28. The
publication did not accept that the use of the image of the complainant in the
article breached Clause 2 (Privacy). It said the image simply showed her
likeness and there was no information included in respect of which the
complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The publication also said
that the use of the image was justified as it demonstrated that the
investigation had taken place. It also said that in any case, there is a strong
public interest in relation to protecting public health and safety and preventing
the public from being misled by some statement or action of that individual.
29. The
complainant said that the offered correction did not resolve her complaint, as
she did not suggest removing gluten from homemade chicken nuggets or a wider
diet plan “to help people with autism”, but in order to help the specific case
of the fictitious child presented to her by the investigator. The complainant
noted that she had been told the child ate chicken nuggets every day with no
fruit or vegetables, and that she had only offered chicken nuggets as tailored
to this individual.
30.
After reviewing the email that was sent to the expert by the publication
seeking a comment for inclusion in the articles, the complainant said it
contained multiple inaccuracies. She said that the quote from the expert was,
therefore, gained on false pretences, and consequently that it was misleading
to include the expert’s comments in the article. The email from the publication
included the following information: it said the complainant had “insisted” and
had “no doubt” the MMR jab was linked to autism, which the complainant
disputed; it said she had recommended “anti-inflammatories” would help the
child, when she said that this sounded as if she had recommended drugs, when in
fact she had recommended supplements with anti-inflammatory properties and an
anti-inflammatory diet; it stated “given that parents may be taken in by claims
and persuaded to spend a lot under the belief their child's autism can be
'treated'” which the complainant said was inaccurate as she did not persuade
parents who were free to choose what care they thought would be helpful to them
and she did not “make claims”; it referred to “concern about unregulated
private clinics in general”, which the complainant said was misleading as she
was not required to register with a regulatory body; it did not list all of the
recipes sent and only set out a few, describing them as “vegan” recipes; it
referred to the National Institute of Health Care and Excellence discrediting
exclusion diets; it said that the complainant had blamed the child’s behaviour
on her diet which caused her to be “in pain”, which the complainant said was
not accurate and omitted that she had also recommended laboratory testing for
the further health causes.
31. The
publication did not accept that the email sent to the expert was inaccurate. It
said that the allegations specifically about the complainant were accurate, for
the reasons previously cited, and that it was not inaccurate to describe
nutritional supplements with anti-inflammatory benefits as
“anti-inflammatories”. It said that the
reference to parents being “taken in by claims and persuaded to spend a lot
under the belief their child's autism can be 'treated'” and “unregulated clinics”
was context for the expert and more general rather than being specifically
about the complainant. It noted the complainant was not named in the email.
Relevant
Code Provisions
Clause 1
(Accuracy)
i) The
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected,
promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology
published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the
regulator.
iii) A
fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when
reasonably called for.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 2
(Privacy)*
i)
Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home,
physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii)
Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private
life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of
privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of
information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in
the public domain or will become so.
iii) It
is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or
private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Clause
10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)*
i) The
press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden
cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile
telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of
documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without
consent.
ii)
Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or
intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then
only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.
The
Public Interest
There
may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be
in the public interest.
1. The
public interest includes, but is not confined to:
· Detecting
or exposing crime, or the threat of crime, or serious impropriety.
· Protecting
public health or safety.
· Protecting
the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or
organisation.
· Disclosing
a person or organisation’s failure or likely failure to comply with any
obligation to which they are subject.
· Disclosing
a miscarriage of justice.
· Raising
or contributing to a matter of public debate, including serious cases of
impropriety, unethical conduct or incompetence concerning the public.
· Disclosing
concealment, or likely concealment, of any of the above.
2. There
is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.
3. The
regulator will consider the extent to which material is already in the public
domain or will become so.
4.
Editors invoking the public interest will need to demonstrate that they
reasonably believed publication - or journalistic activity taken with a view to
publication – would both serve, and be proportionate to, the public interest
and explain how they reached that decision at the time.
5. An
exceptional public interest would need to be demonstrated to over-ride the
normally paramount interests of children under 16.
Findings
of the Committee
32. The
Editors’ Code makes clear that subterfuge and misrepresentation can be
justified in the public interest, which includes protecting public health and
safety. The Committee considered that the investigation into a practitioner who
offers paid services to help children with autism could be in the public
interest as it was an issue which may concern the protection of public health
and safety.
33. The
publication had commissioned an investigator who had knowledge of the subject,
who engaged in misrepresentation and subterfuge in order to create a fake
persona to pose as a parent of an autistic child and participate in a video
consultation. The Committee noted that the complainant had concerns that the
investigator was not impartial – but made clear that this is not a question
that fell under the Editors’ Code, or relevant to the requirements under Clause
10.
34. The
newspaper said it had been contacted by a source, and had been put in touch
with a further source, both of whom wished to remain anonymous, who raised
concerns about the complainant’s firm and the treatments recommended for autism.
The publication also noted several parts of the complainant’s website which
provided advice which appeared to contradict NHS and the National Institute for
Health and Care Excellence guidelines and advice for autism. The newspaper had
demonstrated that it had considered what information might be obtained from the
use of clandestine devices and subterfuge in advance of the investigation, by
discussing several questions with the editor. It had also considered the
proportionality of the investigation, and it was reasonable for the journalist
and newspaper to believe that they would be unable to ascertain the
complainant’s usual advice for children with autism, without employing
subterfuge and misrepresentation. The Committee noted that a video consultation
was the complainant’s usual method of consulting potential clients, and that
the newspaper had simply arranged a consultation by the same method. The use of
misrepresentation and subterfuge was justified in the public interest, in order
to investigate whether the public might be being misled by the actions of the
complainant.
35. The
publication considered that its investigation had demonstrated that the
complainant had recommended exclusion diets against NHS advice and the National
Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines; that the complainant had
suggested that there was a link between the MMR vaccine and autism; and that
the complainant believed that studies confirming a link between the two had
been supressed. Where these views appeared to have been expressed by a health
professional, the Committee considered that the material gathered during the
investigation concerned the protection of public health and safety and that its
publication was justified in the public interest.
36. The
publication had appropriately and satisfactorily considered the issues raised
under the Code, both prior to commissioning the investigation and publication
of the information. The Committee found that the newspaper had satisfied the
requirements of the public interest section of the Code; there was no breach of
Clause 10.
37. With
regards to the accuracy of the article, it had stated that the complainant had
recommended “organic chicken nuggets” as part of an exclusion diet to alleviate
the symptoms of autism. The complainant accepted that chicken nuggets had been
a part of a wider exclusion diet she had recommended, and said that this was
based on the child’s profile the publication had created in order to engage in
a video consultation with the complainant, a reference to which was included in
the article. As the context for recommending chicken nuggets was included
within the article, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point. Where many
of the recipes sent by the complainant to the investigator were vegan, it was
not inaccurate to report that the complainant had sent “vegan recipes”. In
addition, the complainant had said it was misleading for the article to report
that she said “there was ‘no magic pill’ for autism” and that she had never
said that diet alone would take away autism. As noted in paragraph 15 above,
asked if anything would ‘take it away’, she had said: “Number one is the
diet….until you change the diet, that pain will not stop…” The complainant had
also said “There is no magic pill in autism.
Zero. I cannot give you one pill
which will take it away”. During the course of the investigation, the
complainant accepted she had said these quotes and there was no breach of the
Code on these points.
38. It
was accepted by both parties that the National Institute for Health and Care
Excellence did not recommend a change of diet to manage what it described as
the core features of autism”. These guidelines described the core features of
autism as “differences and impairments in reciprocal social interaction and
social communication, combined with restricted and stereotyped interests and
activities, and rigid and repetitive behaviours in children and young people”.
The complainant had said that communication could be helped by a change in
diet. It was, therefore, not misleading for the article to report that the
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence had discredited a change in
diet as a way of managing autism in young people, where the body did not
recommend a change in diet in order to manage the features which had been
referred to by the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1.
39. The
complainant had accepted that her personal page on her website stated "I
have an expertise in autism". The Committee acknowledged that the
complainant had many qualifications, certificates and publications in the field
of autism. However, as the complainant described herself as having an
expertise, and where the article did not cast doubt on the complainant’s
qualifications and certificates, it was not inaccurate to describe her as a
“self-proclaimed” autism expert, and there was no breach of Clause 1.
40. The
complainant had said she doubted that a parent had raised concerns about her,
as she was not aware of any parents having such claims, and did not believe
that they would approach a newspaper about them. Whilst it may have surprised
the complainant that a parent had gone to the newspaper with such concerns,
this complaint was based on speculation alone, and the publication had a duty
to protect its sources under Clause 14. There were no grounds for the Committee
to support a breach of Clause 1 on this point.
41.
Where the complainant accepted that her website said “In our opinion, 80% of
individuals respond favourably to a dietary modification. The improvements may
include improved bowel habit, general health and well being, appetite and
weight regulation, and in children with autism, improved behaviours and sleep
patterns, eye contact, social communication and sensory issues”. It was,
therefore, not misleading for the article to state that the complainant’s
practice claimed to have improved the development of 80% of its patients”.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
42. The
complainant said she had never suggested that the MMR vaccine was linked to
autism. However, the complainant accepted the accuracy of the transcript as
detailed in paragraph 19 of this decision. The Committee considered that the
complainant’s position as recorded in the agreed transcript of the meeting, as
quoted above, could accurately be characterised as the complainant suggesting a
link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Additionally, where the complainant
accepted that she had said: “all doctors, who have raised their concern have
been attacked. Basically you can’t do anything. Even doctors do not do their
job”, it was not inaccurate to report that she had said that “doctors ‘do not
do their job’”, and that studies which linked the two had been “suppressed”. The fact that the investigator had asked
questions specifically about this did not make reporting the complainant’s
response misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
The
complainant accepted that the third-party website she used for questionnaires
contained a tagline that stated “autism is treatable”. The link to the third
party website was included in the questionnaire sent to the investigator. In
addition, the Committee noted that whilst the complainant had said that there
is no “cure” or “treatment” for autism, the name of her company was “Autism
Treatment Plus”. The publication appeared to acknowledge that the questionnaire
did not carry the tagline. Nonetheless, where the third-party website linked to
in the questionnaire emailed to the investigator used this tagline and the
complainant’s company name referred to “Autism Treatment”, it was not
significantly inaccurate to report that the investigator had been sent a
questionnaire with the tagline “autism is treatable”. There was no breach of
Clause 1 on this point.
44. The
complainant accepted that she had said “We will need to assess the full extent
of your daughters’ health through laboratory testing” and had then sent a
document to the investigator after the session which stated, “I enclose below
some information below on the tests we recommend”. The complainant had also
accepted that the tests would be analysed, and prescriptions would be made by
doctors in Geneva. On this basis, it was not misleading for the article to report
that the complainant had recommended tests, or that treatment would involve
working “with medics in Geneva”. In addition, the Committee found that it was
not significantly inaccurate to describe supplements with anti-inflammatory
properties as “anti-inflammatories”.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
45. For the reasons given above, the Committee found that the email which had been sent by the publication to the expert, which contained the same allegations as within the article, was not inaccurate. It was, therefore, not inaccurate to include the quote provided by the expert in the article in response to the allegations. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
46. The
Committee noted that the image of the complainant used in the article was taken
through a video platform whilst she was in her home, and was taken without the
complainant’s consent or knowledge. However, it noted that it was taken whilst
the complainant was acting in her professional capacity, and provided a view of
her that she openly shared with her clients and potential clients without
restrictions, through her video consultations. In such circumstances, the
Committee considered that the complainant did not have the same expectation of
privacy as someone’s home would normally afford. In addition, the Committee
noted that the image had been published to demonstrate that the investigation
had taken place. In all the circumstances, the Committee did not find that the
publication of the image intruded into the complainant’s private life, and
there was no breach of Clause 2.
Conclusions
47. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
48. N/A
Date
complaint received: 02/11/2020
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/09/2021
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.
Back to ruling listing